Startseite Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on

  • Mostafa Boieblan ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 5. September 2024
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Aus der Zeitschrift International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Band 63 Heft 2

Abstract

Due to the bewildering array of spatial configurations that languages build around spatial relations, the acquisition of English spatial prepositions is a daunting task for learners of English as L2. For instance, while the embodied meanings of contact and containment are expressed in English through on and in, respectively, Spanish conveys such configurations through en (in). Furthermore, spatial prepositions bear non-geometric senses, especially those imbued with metaphorical configurations. Accordingly, in addition to its spatial configuration of motion, to, for example, may denote a metaphorical (He gave a questioning look to someone) or attachment sense (The building next to the hospital). Teaching English as L2, however, does not provide learners a conceptual guide to how these senses are related and thus does not render them amenable to systematic, enduring learning. Premised on the assumption that these senses are schematically related through the Principled Polysemy model (PPM), this study assesses whether instructing Spanish learners of English at B1 level on the usages of on and to applying this model will lead to learning benefits. Participants (n = 90) were randomized to receive instruction on the usage of such prepositions based on Collocation Approach (experimental group 1), PPM (experimental group 2), or not receive such instruction (control group). Then they completed a cloze test containing different usages of the target prepositions on three instructional conditions: pre-, post-, and delayed post-test. Differential mean scores were computed using planned contrasts, which indicates a statistically significant effect for PPM.

Keywords: teaching English as a second language; spatial prepositions; embodied meaning; the Principled Polysemy model
Corresponding author: Mostafa Boieblan, Applied Linguistics, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Campus Sur, A-3, Km 7, 28031, Madrid, Spain, E-mail:

References

Aflaki, Niloofar, Kristen Stock, Christopher B. Jones, Hans Guesgen & Jeremy Morley. 2023. An empirical study of the semantic similarity of geospatial prepositions and their senses. Spatial Cognition and Computation 23(2). 132–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2022.2111683.Suche in Google Scholar

Alonso, Rosa. 2002. The role of transfer in second language acquisition. Vigo, Spain: University of Vigo Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Alonso, Rosa, Teresa Cadierno & Scott Jarvis. 2016. Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of spatial prepositions in English as a foreign language. In María Rosa Alonso (ed.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition, 93–120. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.2307/jj.27080052.10Suche in Google Scholar

Arnett, Carlee & Ferran Suñer. 2019. Leveraging cognitive linguistic approaches to grammar teaching with multimedia animations. Journal of Cognitive Science 20(3). 365–399. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2019.20.3.365.Suche in Google Scholar

Basal, Ahmet. 2019. Learning collocations: Effects of online tools on teaching English adjective‐noun collocations. British Journal of Educational Technology 50(1). 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12562.Suche in Google Scholar

Boers, Frank. 1996. Spatial prepositions and metaphor: A cognitive semantic journey along the up-down and the front-back dimensions. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Suche in Google Scholar

Boers, Frank & Seth Lindstromberg. 2008. How cognitive linguistics can foster effective vocabulary teaching. In Frank Boers & Seth Lindstromberg (eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology, 1–61. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110199161.1.1Suche in Google Scholar

Boieblan, Mostafa. 2023. Enhancing English spatial prepositions acquisition among Spanish learners of English as L2 through an embodied approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61(4). 1391–1420. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0151.Suche in Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa. 1996. The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In John Gumperz & Stephen Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, studies in the social and cultural foundation of language, 17, 145–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa & Soonja Choi. 2001. Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development 3. 475–511. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511620669.018.Suche in Google Scholar

Brugman, Claudia & George Lakoff. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Steven L. Small, Garrison W. Cottrell & Michael K. Tanenhaus (eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology, and artificial intelligence, 477–508. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.10.1016/B978-0-08-051013-2.50022-7Suche in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 1989. Spatial cognition and the semantics of prepositions in English, Polish and Russian, 172. Bern: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.10.3726/b12805Suche in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 1997. Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In Verspoor Marjolijn, Sweetser Eve & Lee Kee Dong (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 3–15. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/cilt.150.04cieSuche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Conzett, Jane, Hargreaves Peter, Hill Jimmie, Lewis Michael & Woolard George. 2000. In Michael Lewis (ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach, 163–199. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Coventry, Kenny R., Mercè Prat-Sala & Lynn Richards. 2001. The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of over, under, above, and below. Journal of Memory and Language 44(3). 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2742.Suche in Google Scholar

Danesi, Marcel. 2008. Conceptual errors in second-language learning. In Sabine De Knop & Teun De Rycker (eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar – a volume in honour of rené dirven, 231–256. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110205381.2.231Suche in Google Scholar

De Knop, Sabine. 2020. The embodied teaching of complex verbal phrases with German placement verbs and spatial prepositions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18(1). 131–161. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00054.kno.Suche in Google Scholar

De Knop, Sabine & René Dirven. 2008. Motion and location events in German, French and English: A typological, contrastive and pedagogical approach. In Sabine De Knop & Teun De Rycker (eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar – a volume in honour of rené dirven, 295–324. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110205381.3.295Suche in Google Scholar

Dittrich, André, Maria Vasardani, Stephan Winter, Timothy Baldwin & Fei Liu. 2015. A classification schema for fast disambiguation of spatial prepositions. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGSPATIAL international workshop on GeoStreaming, 78–86.10.1145/2833165.2833167Suche in Google Scholar

Garrod, Simon, Gillian Ferrier & Siobhan Campbell. 1999. In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition 72(2). 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00038-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond & Herbert Colston. 1995. The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics 6(4). 347–378. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.4.347.Suche in Google Scholar

Grady, Joseph. 2005. Image schemas and perception: Refining a definition. In Beate hampe, From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, 35–56. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197532.1.35Suche in Google Scholar

Grivokostopoulou, Foteini, Konstantinos Kovas & Isidoros Perikos. 2020. The effectiveness of embodied pedagogical agents and their impact on students learning in virtual worlds. Applied Sciences 10(5). 1739. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10051739.Suche in Google Scholar

Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Ijaz, Helene I. 1986. Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second language. Language Learning 36(4). 401–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1986.tb01034.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Jarvis, Scott & Terence Odlin. 2000. Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(4). 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100004034.Suche in Google Scholar

Jarvis, Scott & Aneta Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9780203935927Suche in Google Scholar

Johansson Falck, Marlene. 2015. Linguistic theory and good practice: how cognitive linguistics could influence the teaching and learning of English prepositions. In Eva Lindgren & Janet Enever (eds.), Språkdidaktik: Researching language teaching and learning, 61–73. Umeå: Umeå Universitet.Suche in Google Scholar

Johansson Falck, Marlene & Lacey Okonski. 2023. Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (PIMS): The case of spatial and abstract relations. Metaphor and Symbol 38(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2022.2062243.Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson, Mark. 2005. The philosophical significance of image schemas. In Beate Hampe (ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, 15–33. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197532.1.15Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson-Glenberg, Mina C., David A. Birchfield, Lisa Tolentino & Tatyana Koziupa. 2014. Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 106(1). 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034008.Suche in Google Scholar

Jusslin, Sofia, Kaisa Korpinen, Niina Lilja, Rose Martin, Johanna Lehtinen-Schnabel & Eeva Anttila. 2022. Embodied learning and teaching approaches in language education: A mixed studies review. Educational Research Review. 100480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100480.Suche in Google Scholar

Kellerman, Eric. 1977. Towards a characterisation of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2(1). 58–145.Suche in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39.Suche in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Suche in Google Scholar

Landau, Barbara. 2020. Learning simple spatial terms: Core and more. Topics in Cognitive Science 12(1). 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12394.Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Raymond. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, 1. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Laufer, Batia & Tina Waldman. 2011. Verb‐noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning 61(2). 647–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00621.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Lewis, Michael. 1993. The lexical approach, vol. 1. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Lewis, Michael. 2000. Language in the lexical approach. In Michael lewis, teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach, 126–154. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Lindgren, Robb, Michael Tscholl, Shuai Wang & Emily Johnson. 2016. Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education 95. 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Littlemore, Jeannette. 2009. Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Berlin: Springer.10.1057/9780230245259Suche in Google Scholar

Lorincz, Kristen & Gordon Rebekah. 2012. Difficulties in learning prepositions and possible solutions. Linguistic Portfolios 1(1). 1–14.Suche in Google Scholar

Matlock, Teenie. 2004a. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory & Cognition 32(8). 1389–1400. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206329.Suche in Google Scholar

Matlock, Teenie. 2004b. The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 221–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, Igor. 1982. Lexical functions in lexicographic description. In Annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society, vol. 8, 427–444.10.3765/bls.v8i0.2038Suche in Google Scholar

Mueller, Charles. 2011. English learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning? System 39(4). 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.012.Suche in Google Scholar

Munnich, Edward, Barbara Landau & Barbara Anne Dosher. 2001. Spatial language and spatial representation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cognition 81(3). 171–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00127-5.Suche in Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2005. Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/scl.14Suche in Google Scholar

Peters, Elke. 2016. The learning burden of collocations: The role of interlexical and intralexical factors. Language Teaching Research 20(1). 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814568131.Suche in Google Scholar

Pitron, Victor, Alsmith Adrian & de Vignemont Frédérique. 2018. How do the body schema and the body image interact? Consciousness and Cognition 65. 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Pouw, Wim T., Tamara Van Gog, Rolf A. Zwaan & Fred Paas. 2016. Augmenting instructional animations with a body analogy to help children learn about physical systems. Frontiers in Psychology 7. 860. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00860.Suche in Google Scholar

Rahimi, Mehrak & Momeni Ghodrat. 2012. The effect of teaching collocations on English language proficiency. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 31. 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.013.Suche in Google Scholar

Rice, Sally. 1992. Polysemy and lexical representation: The case of three English prepositions. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society, vol. 8994.Suche in Google Scholar

Richard-Bollans, Adam, Lucía Gómez Alvarez, Brandon Bennett & Anthony G Cohn. 2019. Investigating the dimensions of spatial language. In Proceedings of speaking of location 2019: Communicating about space, vol. 2455, 47–56. Leeds.Suche in Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), 2008. Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9780203938560Suche in Google Scholar

Rodrigues, Edilson, Paulo Santos, Marcos Lopes, Brandon Bennett & Paul Oppenheimer. 2020. Standpoint semantics for polysemy in spatial prepositions. Journal of Logic and Computation 30(2). 635–661. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exz034.Suche in Google Scholar

Scheller, Julija. 2008. Animationen in der Grammatikvermittlung: Multimedialer Spracherwerb am Beispiel von Wechselpräpositionen, vol. 7. Münster: LIT Verlag Münster.Suche in Google Scholar

Serra-Borneto, Carlo. 1997. Two-way prepositions in German: Image and constraints. In Marjolijn H. Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 187–204. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/cilt.150.15serSuche in Google Scholar

Snoder, Per. 2017. Improving English learners’ productive collocation knowledge: The effects of involvement load, spacing, and intentionality. TESL Canada Journal 34(3). 140–164. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1277.Suche in Google Scholar

Snoder, Per. 2019. L2 instruction and collocation learning: Classroom intervention research on input processing with L1 Swedish adolescent learners of English. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Language Education, Stockholm University.Suche in Google Scholar

Stam, Gale & Marion Tellier. 2022. Gesture helps second and foreign language learning and teaching. In Aliyah Morgenstern & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Gesture in language: Development across the lifespan, 335–363. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association & Walter de Gruyter GmbH.10.1037/0000269-014Suche in Google Scholar

Suñer, Ferran, Jörg Roche & Liesbeth Van Vossel. 2023. Bodily engagement in the learning and teaching of grammar: On the effects of different embodied practices on the acquisition of German modal verbs. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21(1). 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00126.sun.Suche in Google Scholar

Takahashi, George. 2016. An adventure in English language space: A key to the mysteries of prepositions. Bloomington, Indiana: Xlibris.Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 1972. Semantic structures in English and atsugewi. Doctoral Dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonardo. 1983. How language structures space. In Pick Herbert & Linda Acredolo (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, 1st edn. 225–282. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_11Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonardo. 1996. Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In Paul Bloom, Merrill F. Garrett, Lynn Nadel & Mary A. Peterson (eds.), Language and space, 211–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4107.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, volume 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6847.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Taylor, John. 1993. Prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing, 151–176. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110872576.151Suche in Google Scholar

Taylor, John. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea. 2012. Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York, London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77(4). 724–765. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0250.Suche in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486517Suche in Google Scholar

Tyler, Andrea, Charles Mueller & Vu Ho. 2011. Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1). 181–205.Suche in Google Scholar

Ucar, Serpil & Ceyhun Yükselir. 2015. The effect of corpus-based activities on verb-noun collocations in EFL classes. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 14(2). 195–205.Suche in Google Scholar

Vandeloise, Claude. 1985. Au-delà des descriptions géométriques et logiques de l’espace: Une description fonctionnelle. Lingvisticae Investigationes 9(1). 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/li.9.1.07van.Suche in Google Scholar

Vandeloise, Claude. 1991. Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Vandeloise, Claude. 1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2). 157–184. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1994.5.2.157.Suche in Google Scholar

Van der Gucht, Fieke, Klaas Willems & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2007. The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29(6). 733–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.12.027.Suche in Google Scholar

Yoon, Susan, Emma Anderson, Joyce Lin & Karen Elinich. 2017. How augmented reality enables conceptual understanding of challenging science content. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20(1). 156–168.Suche in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0046).

Received: 2023-03-10
Accepted: 2024-07-09
Published Online: 2024-09-05
Published in Print: 2025-06-26

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Unpacking the positioning of being “disengaged” and “disrespectful” in class through nexus analysis: an international student’s navigation of institutional and interactional university norms
  4. Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements
  5. The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
  6. Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes
  7. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom
  8. Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
  9. The impact of guessing and retrieval strategies for learning phrasal verbs
  10. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality
  11. Examining L2 studentsʼ development of global cohesion and its relationship with their argumentative essay quality
  12. The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
  13. Discipline-specific attitudinal differences of EMI students towards translanguaging
  14. Relationship between second language vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning strategy use: a meta-analysis of correlational studies
  15. Evaluative language in undergraduate academic writing: expressions of attitude as sources of text effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language
  16. Investigating optimal spacing schedules for incidental acquisition of L2 collocations
  17. The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self-efficacy and moderation of gender
  18. Integrated instruction of Appraisal Theory and rhetorical moves in literature reviews: an exploratory study
  19. Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
  20. Exploring the professional role identities of English for academic purposes practitioners: a qualitative study
  21. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance
  22. Teacher behaviour and student engagement with L2 writing feedback: a case study
  23. The effect of an intervention focused on academic language on CAF measures in the multilingual writing of secondary students
  24. Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?
  25. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
  26. The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout and engagement: a conservation-of-resources perspective
  27. Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms
  28. The effects of context, story-type, and language proficiency on EFL word learning and retention from reading
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0046
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
teaching English as a second language; spatial prepositions; embodied meaning; the Principled Polysemy model

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Unpacking the positioning of being “disengaged” and “disrespectful” in class through nexus analysis: an international student’s navigation of institutional and interactional university norms
  4. Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements
  5. The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
  6. Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes
  7. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom
  8. Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
  9. The impact of guessing and retrieval strategies for learning phrasal verbs
  10. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality
  11. Examining L2 studentsʼ development of global cohesion and its relationship with their argumentative essay quality
  12. The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
  13. Discipline-specific attitudinal differences of EMI students towards translanguaging
  14. Relationship between second language vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning strategy use: a meta-analysis of correlational studies
  15. Evaluative language in undergraduate academic writing: expressions of attitude as sources of text effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language
  16. Investigating optimal spacing schedules for incidental acquisition of L2 collocations
  17. The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self-efficacy and moderation of gender
  18. Integrated instruction of Appraisal Theory and rhetorical moves in literature reviews: an exploratory study
  19. Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
  20. Exploring the professional role identities of English for academic purposes practitioners: a qualitative study
  21. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance
  22. Teacher behaviour and student engagement with L2 writing feedback: a case study
  23. The effect of an intervention focused on academic language on CAF measures in the multilingual writing of secondary students
  24. Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?
  25. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
  26. The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout and engagement: a conservation-of-resources perspective
  27. Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms
  28. The effects of context, story-type, and language proficiency on EFL word learning and retention from reading
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 18.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2023-0046/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen